Yes they should rely on donations......what did you expect me to back down? People can broker resources when they realize the value of their product. There are plenty of people on crowd funding, you-tube, blip, and the internet in general that make a decent living off of donations. Because the reward motivation system for human creativity is at its peek when a person is working for the sake of being creative. Rewards actually diminish the overall product when profit becomes the objective. Capitalism works up to a point but it also needs to be reigned in or only the wealthy will have creative freedom.

Did you ever live off donations? It's really nice of you to suggest other's should live like that. I suggest you try it yourself and see how it goes. Not only corporations are greedy. People are greedy too. If you can get something for free, most people won't donate. Just look at Wikipedia. Everyone appreciates him, everybody likes Wikipedia and values the effort. Still, 99.9% don't donate a cent. The guy needs to beg for money to keep that service up and running.I think artists should get paid. They shouldn't need to beg for money to buy food and pay their rent.Another thing is reliability. When artists are getting paid for a job, they get paid even if the product fails. Remember that making a game is not a one man opertaion. An artist might invest 3-5 years of his life to make assets for a game, and then get nothing from donations because the programmer or story writer screwed up or people simply didn't like the game.And it seems you ignored the second part. why only artists?

But then there is no reason at all to not patch out the DRM as soon as rips appear on torrent sites.

Online server-based DRM isn't a binary issue. Go to the pirate bay and search for Diablo 3. Only the 9th hit is actually diablo 3, and is packed with a server emulator which, I quote, is "still in development so if you have some game issues they will be probably updated in approximately ____ days". So 7+ months after D3's launch they still haven't worked out all the kinks in its crack (unlike non-emulation based cracks which come with a 100% functional game). Sim City is a different kind of game, with a different kind of server.

DRM cannot serve any other anti-piracy purpose and the problem with piracy isn't in the first few weeks, it's from the long tail.

I doubt publishers care too much about the "long tail". Everything they do seems to imply they don't.

Yea but thing is, I wonder how many gamers will eventually figure "well, I can't play it for the first few weeks anyway" may as well wait until I can play it without the DRM.

Truth be told, the "few weeks" estimation was veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery optimistic. This isn't the Assassin's Creed 2 or PoP Forgotten Sands "game pings the server every once in a while at preset locations" type of DRM. This is a more MMOish approach where most information is stored not locally but in the EA cloud. And the funny thing is, it took about 3 months for AC2. It's gonna take a lot longer for this.

1. Jobs of any kind are not actually connected to survival. That we humans have a fetish for this kind of thing, is our own problem a purely mental one at that.

2. The artist is in possession of a skill, the skill is valuable because not everyone has it. The productions requiring said skill were never the thing of value as far as the artist was concerned, his or her skill was.An artist who thinks that his or her productions are the thing to monetize is simply doing it wrong. It is not the job of consumers of his or her productions (Commodities that are subject to mass production.) to shield him or her from this by kneecapping themselves.

I don't quite understand you.The current model is:Artist creates an asset.Asset is used to make a product.Consumer pays for product.Producer gets money.Producer pays artist for the application of his skill.

In this scenario consumer doesn't pay for the product. So although I agree that the artist's skill is valuable, i see no way the producer can pay the artist.

And saying that maxis\EA did this on purpose sounds ridiculous to me. Not only they are loosing money, but they are also hurting their brand, which is in trouble as it is. It's Maxis's first "MMO" title, and i don't think that blizzard was willing to share their secrets.They screwed up. Badly. But saying that they don't care is an exaggeration. I don't like always online DRM either, but I am not going to make stuff up to justify my opinion.

let me tell you a little story about a game called torchlight 2when it first game out everybody in the world who had prebought it was downloading it all pretty much at the second they could. almost noone could use multiplayer because the servers were jammed and crashed. the company that released it got up early got on their forums said sorry our bad we're fixing it and fixed it within 24 to 48 hours.

if a small company like that can do it then larger companies can do it too. sure downloads i can excuse when everone in the world is trying to download your game at the same time noones gonna get the file very fast. but always online servers... welll you should know a little something about the demand thats gonna be placed on your servers and have as many as needed to carry the capacity from day 1. there is no excuse for not doing that.

While I agree the video is accurate, I still firmly believe that in this case the game is only good to a cursory inspection. If someone were to point out that there are key problems with the engine, having everyone else complaining about the DRM would works very well to drown them out. Having service issues works well to complicate any in-depth testing of possible faults.

I see that Simcity is fun. I see that it looks great. I also see little things poking up that shouldn't be and the only satisfactory answer is that it looks like problems were left in to be later "fixed" by DLC.

Is it really that hard to imagine that EA/Maxis may have been well aware of likelihood of shit-storm and instead chose to cause it and look like an idiot as opposed to putting out a game with broken core functionality?

Why? Why can't there be games for people who can overcome these barriers? Why can't we have offline single player only games, online multiplayer only games, or games that do both?

Multiplayer exists and it's not going anywhere, so the barriers have been beaten. But even for those games, say COD, it is entirely reliant on those two factors. They are the death-nail in the longevity of the game. For example, I play Sim City 4. That would be impossible if it was mandated to be online all the time. Not enough people play it to justify the server costs and EA would have shut it down anyways so we would be forced to buy their new product. In fact, that's another barrier.

Another thing I haven't heard anyone talk about in terms of online play is the cost. Even those with connection may run into a wall. If they are on for hours at a time for every game, it adds up in bills. What if you don't want to pay for internet in the first place or cannot have access to it? A friend of mine has a doctor for a father, who uses up all the internet. She can't use it because her father says so. EA is saying that she can go suck it because she doesn't have internet.

...I have a feeling that EA isn't afraid of us--they just don't care. This may lead to their downfall, but in the mean time, they're getting sales, and that's what matters. Yeah, it's short-term gains with potential long-term consequences, but I think EA is still testing the waters for the absolute minimum amount of customer service for maximum profit. At some point, it'll break, but if EA is lucky, some other company will have earned our ire by then. Since gamers tend to only be pissed off at one company at a time, EA still has a chance to scoot by unscathed. That, and how much does our angry yelling actually affect game sales? 'Cause if it's "not a lot," we need to find some way to get these messages to everyone.

To be honest if it is online only I don't buy it. I get that MMO's and such have to be online and that makes sense but for the most part if it is online only I won't touch it. If the multiplayer is online it might as well not be there at all for me online multiplayer is just not nearly as much fun for me and would much rather play local.

let me tell you a little story about a game called torchlight 2when it first game out everybody in the world who had prebought it was downloading it all pretty much at the second they could. almost noone could use multiplayer because the servers were jammed and crashed. the company that released it got up early got on their forums said sorry our bad we're fixing it and fixed it within 24 to 48 hours.

if a small company like that can do it then larger companies can do it too. sure downloads i can excuse when everone in the world is trying to download your game at the same time noones gonna get the file very fast. but always online servers... welll you should know a little something about the demand thats gonna be placed on your servers and have as many as needed to carry the capacity from day 1. there is no excuse for not doing that.

You are mixing 2 different issues:1) the time it takes them to fix it: There is a significant difference between Torchlight and Simcity. The amount of players. And I bet the complexity of SimCity is much greater than of Torchlight. I don't think that they are just sitting there taking their time to fix it. It's hard. It will take time. Like I said, they screwed up. And now they are trying to fix it as fast as they can.2) The necessity of always online DRM: I think they should have separated the DRM from the game, so they could remove it if necessary. But their design was such that the DRM is part of the game. I think it's bad for many reasons. Not being able to play at the first week of launch is not one of them. Their excuse to putting it there is piracy. And if you look at the bottom lone, at how much money they are going to make, they are probably going to make more with this DRM than what they would have gotten without it, even with all the rage that you see now. So for them it makes a lot of sense to use it.

The thing is, Jim, that even if we wanted to pirate the game (*wich I don't condone in any way...), it would practically be impossible, due to it functioning as a client/server game, akin to an MMO or Diablo 3, making it rather difficult, if not impossible without having to entirely need to emulate the entire infrasctructure of EA's servers.

I love MMO's and I love online games in general, but this is the kind of BS I just can't stand, transforming SP games into online games and then selling a completely disfunctional game, I think this kind of BS need even more backlash than a shitty, but barelyfunctional game (*cough*A:CM*cough*).

There is also an argument that you didn't elaborate while you presented the old "Sim City" cover...But consumers seam to have a problem thinking in long term... I mean... I can still play the old Sim City on my PC if I want. But as soon as EA will stop the servers... well... too bad for everyone :D and thank you for the 60 dollars !

This is a mainly solo game, so this is not acceptable !

Before you paid for the right to play more or less indefinitely (more or less, because of course, obsolescence exist in computer development). Now, you pay the same amount of money for something you can be prevented to play whenever the publisher will decide. Could be next year for instance, if EA decide it... Why not ?

So consumer accepted the fact that the right to play whenever you want, for as long as you want, was replaced by the right to follow the decision that are taken abroad... The same difference between having a DVD or a copy on your hard drive, and watching a streaming version... you are dependent of the website availability if you want to organize a movie night !

Oh, and by the way !I am living in New Zealand, and here, unlimited internet is non existent. I am paying my internet gigabyte by gigabyte... So the people arguing that "you can always be online bla bla bla" are just ignorants who take for granted what they have ! First world problem...

On a note of EA's free game as an apology, this was intentional from the start. The bigger your Origin library, the more dedicated you have to be to the service. If you need proof, see what Valve did with the DOTA2 release and tell me that the user base didn't increase.

What is really the most amazing thing about this is that EA, in an effort to stop piracy, has in fact made piracy the most convenient method of playing the game. Brilliant!! Actually you should all go to Amazon and look at the positive reviews of the game. Yes, the positive ones. They're amazing.

I kind of feel sorry for my collegue.He's in his 30s and isn't really into the gaming debate, because he only plays stuff like farmville, settlers and sim-city.He was really looking forward to this game, and even took two days off to play it.I wish I had had the chance to warn him.

But then there is no reason at all to not patch out the DRM as soon as rips appear on torrent sites.

Online server-based DRM isn't a binary issue. Go to the pirate bay and search for Diablo 3. Only the 9th hit is actually diablo 3, and is packed with a server emulator which, I quote, is "still in development so if you have some game issues they will be probably updated in approximately ____ days". So 7+ months after D3's launch they still haven't worked out all the kinks in its crack (unlike non-emulation based cracks which come with a 100% functional game). Sim City is a different kind of game, with a different kind of server.

Pirates may have mere "kinks" with server emulation.

But what incredibly unreliability have legitimate consumers been left with from the DRM saddled versions? Pretty legendarily bad.

Yeah, well I for one knew that "our game is a service" was just a really poor mask for always online DRM and instantly stopped caring about the game then and there.

Fast forward to know, glad to know that I didn't waste $60 on this nonfunctional garbage. Single player games should always be playable online. Always online should be restricted to multiplayer where you actually need to be connected to play.

geizr:**Puts on hermit's beard, mud-streaked hair, and loin-cloth and walks into the wilderness to shout from therein...**

Just stop buying it, people!

[capcha: A swift kick does it. So very appropriate.]

Common sense? It's crazy, but it just might work.

Waffle_Man:People have been saying that the video games industry has been headed for a crash for years. They usually would bring up the problem of video games being mostly derivative and repetitive garbage. I'd usually remain skeptical of these claims, but as DRM and companies blatently punishing the consumer becomes more and more of the focus, I can't help but agree.

You should continue your skepticism.

People have started talking a lot of shit about valve lately, and some of it is very justified, but is it really that hard to understand why people are so in love with them right now?

Valve is beloved for the same reason they were when their client was a clunky, obtrusive piece of crap. You may have never had a problem playing a game offline, but I have, and so have others. "It never happened to me" is the kind of thing that demonstrates why anecdotes aren't really worth much. Meanwhile, EA takes shit for stuff they practically copied off of Valve, so I'm kind of glad to see people stop fellating Valve at this point. They've got a free ride for too long.

What they aren't ignorant of is a loss in revenue, which at this point is going to happen.

Regarding SimCity, or in general? Because if it's the former, then no. Last I looked, SimCity is ne of Amazon's top sellers even after being DE-LISTED. If it's the latter, then when? Because people have been singing that tune for years, now, and it hasn't happened.

poiumty:Heh. Piracy is sadfortunately not an option as it'll at least take a good long while until there's Sim City server emulation.

See that's the thing about online DRM: with all its colossal failures, EA still has something to be happy about - the nullifying of piracy within the first few weeks.

This is also why they're going to try and stick more games with it in the future. And, like before, a lot of people will buy it because they don't care, and others will buy and then complain anyway.

This caught my eye. You do know Sony is only part of the BD consortium and doesn't really have the authority to stop Microsoft from using BD, right? In fact, I can't remember the name, but BD technology uses an existing Microsoft patent. They get a small amount of money for every BD drive manufactured, including the Playstation 3. This is not even uncommon because, outside of video games, they're really not rivals at all. Even in gaming it remains debatable, as they seem to not really compete except in the sense of seeing who can come up with the dumbest new ideas for otherwise adequate systems.

Jim I wish you'd said more about the free market other than just calling it "precious". Gamers do vote with their wallets, and what they've consistently voted for in the past is good marketing and not (initial) product stability.

Seriously, thank you for having the balls and integrity to place your face and condemn disgrace. Did you see Friday's Office Chat from Dtoid? How they basically bent over and said: "Yeah, we knew it was going to be bad, people who still complain about it are idiots." WTF!? This are not PR spin doctors, nor corporate shills, these are videogame journalists.

Videogame journalism takes stereotypical flak for being immature, for being about a naive, childish subject or just for being unprofessional. Fact is videogames are a huge market, they move billions and if mainstream media and public opinion think it still is cool to dismiss videogames as puerile escapism for social outcast minorities, they are living in an 80s bullying mindset. The real problem with videogame journalism is professional videogame journalists that actually feel this way, that take their job shallowly and dismiss it themselves as puerile escapism and thus behave as if ethics and morals have no place in their job, and this does a great disservice to it's audience.

Yes, most gamers eat up corporate bullshit with a shovel, but as gaming generations grow older they wise up to this manipulating and deception. As they grow older, goes in hand with companies growing greedier and more cynical, almost to farcically dystopian levels. Journalists should privilege from their position of leaders as sources of information and adhere a moral high ground in a path of public education. Too many gamers, and sadly too many journalists, seem happy to bend over and take it hard in order to keep on the publisher's good side; in order to have access to the down trickles their greed sees fit to sweep on their plates. Publisher's need to be held accountable, gamers need to know they are the ones in power and journalists are the ones to move this gain of conscience forward.

Videogame journalism is still not completely under corporate rule, as sadly mainstream media or "real journalism" is. The internet gives videogame journalist leeway to be brave, to be leaders and have integrity. To aspire to become recognized, respected or equaled to mainstream media is a profoundly naive, anachronistic pipe dream. Truth is, videogame journalism has the tools and potential to ascend to a higher status of integrity and be a much more efficient tool for the people.

So thank you, Jim. For caring and making an effort, and being damn good at it. I am continually surprised by the quality and political sharpness of your pieces. Always hard hitting and unapologetic. Thank god for Jim!

No. It's a free market. This behaviour is controlled by the consumers, not by the publishers and certainly not by the journalists. The only way that the behaviour of the publishers will change is if the consumers tell them to change it (with their wallets). Right now game consumers are sending a clear message: give us good marketing and we will give you money in advance with pre-orders and even more money with uninformed day-one purchases. Hence, money gets spent on trailers instead of servers. At that point the consumer isn't really in much of a position to complain (certainly not in the US at any rate, where shitting on the consumer is not only legal but actually considered moral by many) and neither is Jim.

1.I don't care about EA, ME3 was last game I bought and I don't plan to stick around origin anymore2.Pirating is slippery topic so we'll avoid it, BUT what about cracking your game? The game you bought for your hard earned money. YOUR game. It is like modding basically, only this "mod" removes shitty attitude from publisher. Comments?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:The last line made the video for me. So sly, Jim, so sly...

I'm hoping Thrikeen and co turn up, just because I'd love to see them defend this shit against Jim's rather forceful and emotive points. As for me, I gave up on this game when Maxis referred to initial tech issues with the phrase "allowing gamers to play the game".

Fuck you. If I pay you for a game, you do not then get to tell me whether I'm allowed to play it or not.

Although given how many people have had their Origin accounts banned by EA, and been unable to play their games, I can't say I'm surprised.

We're not likely to see them in this thread.

For one, even they would realize how foolish they'd seem trying to defend this whole debacle. For another, some have recently managed to get themselves suspended for....well....behaving badly.

Regardless, some of them have to realize the folly of "defending" EA now-a-days, right? I mean, at this point, it's like Battered Person Syndrome.

But what incredibly unreliability have legitimate consumers been left with from the DRM saddled versions? Pretty legendarily bad.

Pirates have mere "kinks" after SEVEN FUCKING MONTHS.

EA will likely fix this whole thing completely by next week.

There's a difference, man. Don't talk like there isn't.

uh no they probably wont. D3 continued to have connectivity and lag issues weeks after launch and according to some (wouldnt know dont play it myself) still does.the companies could be getting better but arent investing the cash and time to do so. pirates will only getting better at cracking this server thing

I never thought the younger gamer generations would be the corporate defenders and the older ones demanding to actually own what you pay for and that gaming isn't a service.

Here's a soon-to-be-reality situation:You're at home, waching streaming movies and TV or playing your always-online game library and suddenly your cable service goes out for a few hours. Now what? I guess you could read a book.

And remember:When EA decides to shut the server off in a couple years to make you buy a sequel or they just don't feel it's cost effective, you've lost a game permanently. Oh, they might possibly maybe patch an offline mode if they feel like it? Well imagine the better reception and less hate they would have recieved if they did that in the first place.

poiumty:See that's the thing about online DRM: with all its colossal failures, EA still has something to be happy about - the nullifying of piracy within the first few weeks.

And are you sure that EA should be happy about that?

This line of thinking only works if you accept the publishers' assumption, that stopping piracy leads to extra sales by forcing pirates to pay.

Which appears to make sense on the short term: among all those "ideological pirates", and the "poor Ukranian college student" pirates, and the "trying before buying" pirates, there must be at least SOME freeloaders who are just taking the path of least resistance, and trying to spare some money by tring to avoid payment as long as it's easy.

But on the long term?

Diablo 3 and Sim City 2013 were bought (and played) by a lot of people. But how many will buy Diablo 4 or Sim City 2015?

I'm not even talking about fan rage, but simple hype math. Let's say that 90% of gamers are pirates, and 10% can be turned):

Game A has 1 million buyers and 10 million extra pirate players. Game B has 2 million buyers and it has piracy eliminated.

On the long term, should the publisher of Game B really feel happy about that? Game A will get more word of mouth, more news reports on sites (that don't care which players their ad revenue is coming from), more references in mainstream media, more forum avatars, more threads, and a more lively fan community.

Two years later, Game A/2 will easily reach 2 million sales (through 20 million players). But how much will Game B/2 grow, after it so successfully locked out most of it's potential supporters and guaranteed it's own isolation from pop-culture?

The only way to bet on that strategy would be, if you would have certain data that in the actual numbers to fill in for these placeholders, the benefits of stopping piracy actually outweight the benefits of having piracy.

Before they can do that, simply assuming that "piracy is ultimately harmful, because it has some negative effects" just doesn't add up.

This caught my eye. You do know Sony is only part of the BD consortium and doesn't really have the authority to stop Microsoft from using BD, right? In fact, I can't remember the name, but BD technology uses an existing Microsoft patent. They get a small amount of money for every BD drive manufactured, including the Playstation 3. This is not even uncommon because, outside of video games, they're really not rivals at all. Even in gaming it remains debatable, as they seem to not really compete except in the sense of seeing who can come up with the dumbest new ideas for otherwise adequate systems.

Hmm that seems odd. Not saying I am not nodding, just odd that if MS had BD as a proprietary technology why on earth did they attempt to leverage the HD-DVD? So lemme dig into this and figure out where I made a boo boo.

Going off this list I don't see Microsoft listed... this supports your assertion of "letting this or that", which was a good call. It does indicate that going Blu-Ray means an additional per unit cost, which I suspect is why there has been so much hemming around the topic by Microsoft.

Great. But what about the Blu-ray issue?There's no way Microsoft will install a Blu-ray drive into the Xbox 720, and to be quite honest, I don't think there's any reason for it to do so. The reasons are simple. First, Microsoft doesn't want to pay a competitor--Sony, the key backer behind the Blu-ray Disc Association--to use its format. Second, and perhaps most important, Microsoft realizes that Blu-ray isn't an ideal format, given the fact Blu-ray's chance of success is very much in doubt.

That indicates to me that Sony is a major player to the BD equation... but I think we can do better.

After supporting the losing HD-DVD camp in the HD disc format war, it was surprising how little damage it did to the Xbox 360 over its lifespan.... Recent information would seem to confirm this, with unnamed sources speaking to specialist site The Next Xbox, stating that the next-generation Xbox 360 will include a Blu-ray drive.

Previous spec leaks concerning the Xbox 720, from bigger name sources than this one, have included a Blu-ray drive in the mix of components. GamesRadar Managing Editor Tom Magrino said of the most recent rumour; "I avoid absolutes as a rule, that said, there is a zero percent chance that the next Xbox will ship without a Blu-ray player," Magrino asserted

"Setting aside the wealth of leaks from reliable sources, Microsoft's strategy for years has been to turn the Xbox into the de facto media hub for every family's living room, not just a game console." He concluded that "It can't, with a straight face, continue to make that claim without a Blu-ray player, seeing as that is the future of physical media".

So yeah, I am speculating, but not without some source information from whence to speculate. Didn't take into account that BD as a format/medium was a consortium with Sony as a player at the table, not the dealer at the head of the table.

That said I have probably supported your assertion, which isn't a bad thing at all.

My conclusion (updated) is going to be more along the lines of pitching a unit which bundles in some form of service or lease agreement alongside or with the unit itself, out of the card board. Basically it comes down to who you want your service provider to be as a matter of brokerage. Considering how "off the shelf" these units are looking it seems a bit of a head scratch-er as where these companies think the profit is hidden.

Maybe something along the lines of a Sony premium service contract which includes some games/movies/cloud/digital download... and Microsoft bundling in Hulu and Netflix with a premium service contract as well as g/m/c/dd.

Maybe go so far as to suggest the units themselves will be feature crippled without service contracts.

As far as devices? Right there with you on that one. Monkey see monkey do I suppose. The goggles for PC is an interesting concept, then again I have been using TrackIR for some time, and with the right game/simulator it is very slick. It wouldn't surprise me to see the goggles attempt to do something similar to this with the track IR feature set built in.

Heck I like to golf, but the motion controls for the golf games... suck. Interface devices (especially with consoles) have been a sort of staple of the industry though. I guess today it is how counter-intuitive some of the games are that utilize these controls have become and/or how poorly they handle out of the box.

Don't really have any skin in this game or debate, or whatever it is. Own a PS3 due to the reasonable BD player and I got a good deal when the local big box couldn't shift em. Occasionally it plays a game, mostly it is a glorified VCR and netflix for the kids. Own Xbox(s) just to play Panzer Dragoon and Lost Odyssey... the first Xbox is hacked to hell and back... both systems, again I got for a song.

The newer consoles just don't do it for me. H2O radiator cooled, SLi'd, OC'd PC ftw I suppose. Really the fall of the console can't come soon enough... the "un-crippling" of PC games (Skyrim comes to mind, New Tomb raider I heard has issues, wouldn't surprise me at some point during SimCity developement that Console wasn't mentioned) has become... well tedious... it's like an unwelcome pet which gets a lot of attention, for all the wrong reasons. :D